Scope Shift or Equivalency?

[zainrizvi]

This is something that is consistently bothering me in my LSAT prep - when are two things "equal", or the same thing? For example, in this question (q20-scientist-my-research-indicates-that-t785.html) how can we confirm/disprove that behavioural tendencies = impulsive behaviour. I see the LSAT equating one thing with another all the time, as if we know these categories are supposed to fit in (i.e behavioural tendencies encompasses impulsive behaviour), but with what knowledge are we supposed to make that judgement(the judgement being that these words are referring to the same entity)? When is that baby-step inference valid?

PS. I'm having this same problem in RC as well - I don't know when there is a scope shift, or a valid synonym/category is being used.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Great question zainrizvi! The truth of the matter is that this is something that has bothered me for a very long time as well, and while I don't have the answer, I have a policy that aids me in knowing when it's okay to make these jumps in language and when I should avoid it.

First off lets start with the current issue:

Behavioral Tendencies and Impulsive Behavior

Is it fair to say that if something is behavioral tendency, then it's an impulsive behavior? No, there are other forms of behavioral tendencies.

Is it fair to say that if something is an impulsive behavior, then it's a behavioral tendency? Yes, behavioral tendencies are a broad category in which impulsive behavior is one form of manifestation.

So keep a look out for generalizations and pay attention to the direction the generalization is moving.

To your broader point. Generally, I give the LSAT a ton of flexibility early in the section, and only tighten up on the language when I end up with more than one answer choice. Whereas later in the section I begin with a very tight definition of language and only allow them flexibility when I end up with no answer choices.

Hope that helps!

[zainrizvi]

Wow that is a great explanation.

Just as a follow up to that, how do you tackle something like the issue here (my post is the last one) : q19-there-have-been-no-new-cases-t866.html


I understand that for the paradox problem because it occurs early in the section, you can give it some flexibility. But for Q19 it seems kind of off. My reasoning is that (E) is wrong because it says IPV, like MOST vaccines, carries a slight risk. So technically OPV could or could not have that slight risk; since both options are possible, it doesn't really weaken it for sure. If anything, since the language used is "most", it suggests a stronger implication that OPV does, in fact, have the same risk.


Thanks once again. I'm really starting to understand the LSAT at a deeper level because of this forum.